2021 (8) TMI 183 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of notices issued - request to petitioner to file its objections, if any, in writing in supported documents, within a period of 15 days of the receipt of the notices - petitioner mainly contended that an opportunity is to be granted to the writ petitioner to defend their case - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The petitioner has failed to state the subsequent Writ Petitions filed by the petitioner in W.P.Nos.15635 and 15636 of 2016, challenging the assessment orders passed by the competent authority on 09.11.2015, for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12. Without even stating the fact regarding the above Writ Petitions filed by the petitioner challenging the orders of assessment, the present Writ Petitions are filed, challenging the notices issued pursuant to the orders passed by this Court dated 26.04.2016 in W.P.Nos.15635 and 15636 of 2016. Thus, the petitioner has clearly suppressed the vital information regarding the filing of two Writ Petitions on earlier occasions. This Court has directed the petitioner to file their objections within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and thereafter, the Assessing Officer has to decide the matter afresh, on merits. Its contended that in obedience to the orders passed by this Court, notice was issued on 25.05.2016, calling for the objections. The subsequent events occurred are stated in the calender of action produced by the respondents as extracted in the aforementioned paragraphs. The process of assessment is yet to be completed. The writ petitioner, instead of submitting their objections and availing the opportunity for the purpose of defending their case, filed Writ Petitions, questioning the notices, which cannot be appreciated. By filing Writ Petitions after Writ Petitions, the issues are prolonged and protracted. The impugned notices clearly state that the petitioner has to file its objections if any, to the proposals stated in the notices within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the notices. Further, an opportunity of personal hearing was also offered to the petitioner to appear before the authority on 08.07.2021, to represent the case with documentary evidence - it is left open to the petitioner to submit their defence statement along with the documents and the respondents are directed to give one more final opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioner and if the writ petitioner has failed to avail the opportunity, then the respondents are at liberty to proceed with the assessment and pass final orders, on merits and in accordance with law. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notices requesting petitioner to file objections within 15 days; Compliance with court directions; Allegations against respondents under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act; Entertaining writ against show cause notice; Prolonged litigation due to repeated writ petitions; Failure to avail opportunities provided by authority.

Analysis:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the challenge to notices issued to the petitioner, requiring them to submit objections within 15 days. The petitioner argues that they were not granted a proper opportunity to defend their case before the assessment order was hurriedly passed. This contention is supported by the petitioner's need to scrutinize records for a robust defense. Additionally, the petitioner highlights previous court directions that were not adhered to by the respondents, suggesting non-compliance with legal procedures.

Another aspect of the case involves allegations that the respondents acted against the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner raises concerns regarding the merits of the case, emphasizing that such issues should be addressed with reference to original documents and evidence, rather than through writ petitions challenging notices.

The judgment emphasizes that writs against show cause notices should only be entertained in exceptional circumstances, such as incompetence or malafides on the part of the issuing authority. The court underscores the importance of presenting grounds on merits before the competent authority for proper adjudication, rather than through routine writ petitions.

A detailed timeline of actions taken by the respondents is presented, showcasing the efforts made to engage with the petitioner and gather necessary information for assessment purposes. Despite multiple reminders and opportunities provided, the petitioner's failure to engage effectively is noted, leading to a prolonged legal process due to repeated writ petitions.

Ultimately, the court criticizes the petitioner for resorting to a strategic approach of filing successive writ petitions to prolong the issue unjustly. The judgment highlights the petitioner's failure to avail themselves of opportunities provided by the authority for a fair defense. As a result, the court dismisses the writ petitions, directing the petitioner to submit their defense statement and documents, with the respondents given one final opportunity for a personal hearing. Failure to comply may lead to the authority proceeding with the assessment and issuing final orders in accordance with the law.